Cross Jurisdictional Tolling of the Statute of Limitations

0

In Stevens v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., the Supreme Court addressed for the first time whether a case filed in a different jurisdiction served to toll the statute of limitations against a defendant in that second case. In Stevens, the plaintiff timely brought suit  against her doctor, his business, and John Does one through four. She did not name Novartis however. The complaint was amended to name Novartis 10 months after the statute of limitations had run on her claim.

In one of her arguments, Stevens maintained that the statute of limitations was tolled by a class action lawsuit brought in federal district court. Stevens asserted that because the Becker suit contained a request for worldwide class certification, and contained claims substantively identical to those made by Stevens, the statute of limitations was tolled as to Stevens as well as other potential class members.

As a matter of first impression, the Supreme Court concluded that the class action tolling rule would be logically applied in this case and ruled that Stevens’ amended complaint was timely filed.

In addressing one of Novartis’ two principal arguments to the application of class action tolling, the  supreme court went on to adopt a rule allowing for cross-jurisdictional tolling of claims. The Court found that the main reason that other state courts were declining to adopt cross-jurisdictional tolling is the fear that doing so while the doctrine is not yet widely accepted will trigger a rush on the courts of that state.

The Supreme Court did not agree that this was a valid concerned and plainly stated its belief that they were not expanding access to courts beyond the access to which out-of-state plaintiffs are already entitled.

The Court went on to caution that some class action lawsuits would not put the defendants on notice of the substantive claims against them, and under such a situation the class-action tolling rule may not apply. The Court also noted that the amount of time the plaintiff is alleging has been tolled is a relevant consideration (noting that 10 years may have produced a different outcome than the 10 months in the present case).

Subrogation

0

Subrogation is a fairly general concept, with a rather specific application in injury law. For our purposes, it occurs when an insurance company seeks repayment for money already disbursed to an injured insured from a source that otherwise would have gone to that same insured. It occurs when an insurance company tries to recover expenses it paid on a claim when someone else should have been responsible for paying (at least some) of that claim.

For example, imagine you were in a car accident with an unknown driver. The driver left the scene before you could gather any information and so you’re left holding the bag. You make a claim with your insurance company to cover your injuries and damages, and your insurance pays some of your claim. Later, your insurance company tracks down the man who hit you and, on your behalf, recovers some of the amount he owes you. If your insurance company is paid the amount they initially paid to you, that’s subrogation.

Subrogation is a controversial issue because of the made-whole rule. Until an injury victim has recovered damages sufficient to cover all his damages, his insurance company cannot seek subrogation. Like all things to do with the law, this is a complicated subject and the outcome depends heavily on your specific situation. If you have questions about subrogation and how it works, please call us today to discuss your case and learn more about your options.

Car Accident Attorneys

0

Despite being called car accidents, they usually aren’t accidents at all. Instead, if you look back you can usually find something one of the drivers did that caused the automobile wreck. As Car Accident Lawyers, a large part of what we do is determining what happened before an accident. Especially if the collision causes injury or death, these actions need to be investigated completely in order that the victims can be compensated for their losses.

The car accident attorneys at our firm know how crucial it is for our clients to be able to depend on us to protect their rights. That’s why we provide a free consultation for injury victims. You can call us today.

Tragically, most car accidents are caused by negligence or recklessness that could have been avoided. Negligence occurs when the vehicle’s driver fails to exercise due care. Recklessness, on the other hand, is the intentional disregard for a substantial and unjustifiable risk. There are many different kinds of negligent or reckless actions that lead to car accidents. For example: drunk driving, texting while driving, drowsy driving, speeding, following too closely, failure to yield, red light running, and drugged driving (which includes prescription drugs as well as illegal narcotics).

Although law requires that all drivers carry liability insurance, too many people choose to break the law. This means that when they cause an accident, it can be much harder to hold them responsible and adequately compensate the injured party. Having your own insurance is helpful, but as I’ve heard too many times – insurance companies don’t make money by approving claims. If you’re the victim of a car accident, you may find yourself fighting your own insurance company. At times like that, having knowledgeable and skilled attorneys can make a huge difference.